Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory |
| Subject | Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] |
| Date | 2022-05-11 04:02 +0100 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <871qx0lqkn.fsf@bsb.me.uk> (permalink) |
| References | (16 earlier) <20220510190118.00006b59@reddwarf.jmc> <f09ecbad-ecbf-4cfe-bdf9-648c30af5794n@googlegroups.com> <ofSdneReTvjoYOf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bkw4lx13.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QoCdnVAMjJzvkOb_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
> On 5/10/2022 7:42 PM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 5/10/2022 1:59 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, May 10, 2022 at 11:01:21 AM UTC-7, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 10 May 2022 16:41:28 +0100
>>>>> Ben <ben.u...@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/10/2022 6:23 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 10 May 2022 at 11:31:46 UTC+1, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/9/2022 7:13 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/9/2022 5:14 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/8/2022 1:27 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My code is utterly trivial. The tape is a std::string to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which I assign the input. All that happens after that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that tape[head] is assigned to, and the string is grown by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one blank, either at the front or the back, if the tape
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> movement requires it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conventionally tapes have an actual beginning, yet no fixed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sipser and Kozen agree with me, Linz agrees with you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> None of these authors say what is "conventional". What is
>>>>>>>>>>>> certain is that if there were a convention, an author not
>>>>>>>>>>>> using that convention should say as much. You'll find,
>>>>>>>>>>>> however, that that is not the case.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> How would you define conventional?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "the accepted or traditional method of doing something"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The most typical use is one way unlimited, right?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't know. I know it's not a widely agreed convention, but
>>>>>>>>>> what it "typical" is hard to assess. I think double-open is more
>>>>>>>>>> commonly used in modern presentations, but the only real way to
>>>>>>>>>> know would be to do a survey and I don't think the topic merits
>>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> From a technical point of view, double-open is clearly
>>>>>>>>>> preferable as it removes a special case with no technical
>>>>>>>>>> down-side.
>>>>>>>>> There's a technical downside if you implement the tape in the
>>>>>>>>> obvious way, as a dynamic buffer. Most languages make it quite
>>>>>>>>> fast to append characters to the buffer's end.
>>>>>>>> I meant for the theory of such machines. It's the theory and the
>>>>>>>> theorems that will dictate which style an authors chooses and
>>>>>>>> there's no down-side in that context.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There's usually spare memory there in the system, so
>>>>>>>>> the push_back() operation is just a case of incrementing a size
>>>>>>>>> field.
>>>>>>>> If you do the resizing right, the same is true of push_front().
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> push_front(), however, generally requires a push_back, followed
>>>>>>>>> by a move for the entire buffer.
>>>>>>>> Every now and then, your realloc will need an extra move, but
>>>>>>>> that's a cost that will be amortised if you do the usual
>>>>>>>> exponential resizing.
>>>>>>>>> There are ways round this, of course, but you have to know what
>>>>>>>>> you are doing, and it's not as easy to write.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gosh, you have a low opinion of what's generally understood!
>>>>>>>> Maybe I have too high an opinion, but growing a buffer at one or
>>>>>>>> other or even both ends seems to me to be utterly trivial.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/deque
>>>>>>> push_back adds an element to the end
>>>>>>> push_front inserts an element to the beginning
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think everyone here knows that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Using std::deque was suggested before (by Jeff I think), but at nearly
>>>>>> 200 million steps a second, I didn't think there was much room for a
>>>>>> speed-up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've just tried it, and using std::deque rather than std::string slows
>>>>>> my implementation down to 106 million steps a second, and it doesn't
>>>>>> simplify the logic at all. In fact, the few places where you really
>>>>>> want a string get a bit more fiddly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mind you, the speed is almost irrelevant unless you are hunting for BB
>>>>>> champions.
>>>>> std::string (or std::vector) will likely win for small N and std::deque
>>>>> for large N as far as push_front is concerned.
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>> If you are not actually implementing a machine replacing the tape by
>>>> a pair of stacks is attractive. Actually you replace the tape by
>>>> three things - two stacks (called for example left and right) and a
>>>> single focus cell.
>> I've tried both (two stacks and two stacks and a cell) and I think the
>> extra cell just makes it a bit fussy.
>>
>
> std::vector <is> essentially a stack.
You can certainly use a std::vector as a stack but I'd derive my own
stack from a vector so as to make it infinitely "popable" with the pop
operation returning the tape's blank symbol.
> struct Tape
> {
> unsigned int Tape_Head;
> std::vector<unsigned char> Left;
> std::vector<unsigned char> Right;
> unsigned int move_left();
> unsigned int move_right();
> };
>
> Tape_Head is mapped to its location in Left or Right.
> I am still working out the details of this part.
This looks odd. If you use the two stacks approach, you don't need
Tape_Head. The current cell is never indexed but is always the top of
the Right stack.
--
Ben.
"le génie humain a des limites, quand la bêtise humaine n’en a pas"
Alexandre Dumas (fils)
Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 15:53 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-06 22:08 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 16:25 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-06 22:29 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 17:08 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-07 13:02 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 14:41 -0700
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 17:02 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 15:36 -0700
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 17:54 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-05-07 00:39 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 18:54 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-07 01:54 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 20:05 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-07 23:21 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-05-07 19:57 -0600
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-08 07:34 -0400
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-05-08 05:11 -0700
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-08 14:20 -0400
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-08 19:59 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-09 03:14 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-08 22:39 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-09 12:36 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-08 14:44 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-05-08 11:08 -0600
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-08 19:27 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-08 15:22 -0400
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-08 20:30 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 10:53 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-09 23:08 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 17:32 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-09 20:31 -0400
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-10 01:37 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 20:29 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-10 11:35 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-10 19:12 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-05-08 14:51 -0600
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 10:18 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-09 23:14 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 17:42 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-10 01:13 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 20:28 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-09 23:34 -0400
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-05-10 00:24 -0700
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-10 11:31 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-05-10 03:46 -0700
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-10 12:23 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-10 06:53 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-10 08:01 -0400
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-10 16:41 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-05-10 11:56 -0600
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-10 19:43 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-05-10 20:49 -0600
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-10 19:01 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-05-10 11:59 -0700
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-10 19:04 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-11 01:42 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-10 20:12 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-05-11 03:05 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-10 21:14 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-05-11 02:19 -0700
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-11 08:54 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-05-11 16:27 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-11 10:36 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-05-11 16:49 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-05-11 14:30 -0700
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-11 16:38 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-05-12 00:01 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-11 19:05 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-05-12 04:03 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-11 22:29 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-11 22:37 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-12 15:02 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-05-12 19:03 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-12 19:30 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 14:23 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-12 19:19 -0400
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-05-13 01:02 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-05-11 23:13 -0600
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 00:43 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-11 04:02 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-10 22:07 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-11 13:40 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-11 09:02 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-05-11 16:09 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-11 10:29 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-11 20:35 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-11 15:12 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-11 22:54 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-11 17:02 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-12 02:00 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-11 20:37 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-12 02:49 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-11 21:49 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-12 14:45 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 10:31 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-12 21:20 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 15:33 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-12 21:36 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 16:28 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-12 22:33 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-12 22:02 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 16:14 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-13 00:18 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 18:22 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-13 01:10 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 19:58 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-13 02:54 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-12 22:09 -0400
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 21:41 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-13 10:01 +0300
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 10:57 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-13 19:06 +0300
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-13 11:54 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-13 13:38 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 11:07 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-13 17:14 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 12:03 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-13 18:09 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 12:15 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-13 17:26 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 12:07 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-13 19:45 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 13:57 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 15:04 -0400
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 14:15 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 15:40 -0400
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 14:58 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 16:24 -0400
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 15:33 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 17:25 -0400
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 16:48 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 18:05 -0400
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-13 20:12 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 14:28 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-13 21:58 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 16:12 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-13 23:57 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 17:59 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-14 01:00 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 19:09 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-14 01:21 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-17 13:17 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-05-14 01:54 -0700
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-14 04:13 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-05-14 03:30 -0700
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-14 08:51 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-05-14 11:38 -0700
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-14 13:54 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-14 13:15 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-05-14 11:37 -0700
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-05-14 19:47 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-14 20:15 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-05-14 12:52 -0700
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ unlimited scalability ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 16:43 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ unlimited scalability ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-13 23:58 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ unlimited scalability ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 18:03 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-05-13 15:06 -0600
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 16:16 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-05-13 17:48 -0600
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 19:06 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-05-13 19:58 -0600
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 22:39 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-05-13 19:48 -0600
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 11:00 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 12:08 -0400
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-13 17:27 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 12:10 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 13:20 -0400
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-11 22:07 -0400
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-10 21:06 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-11 00:11 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-10 19:41 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-10 06:53 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-07 21:04 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-08 07:30 -0400
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-08 14:46 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 10:19 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-07 01:22 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 19:38 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-07 02:01 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 20:22 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-07 23:30 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-07 02:04 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 20:26 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-05-07 05:00 -0700
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-07 23:31 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-07 18:36 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-05-08 02:39 -0700
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ priorities ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-08 17:21 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-07 11:06 +0300
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-07 11:14 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-08 11:57 +0300
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 10:35 -0500
csiph-web